From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28912 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2002 09:01:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 28747 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2002 09:01:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (213.95.15.193) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Nov 2002 09:01:17 -0000 Received: from Hermes.suse.de (Charybdis.suse.de [213.95.15.201]) by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C004149BB; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:01:16 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:01:00 -0000 From: Michael Matz To: Matt Austern Cc: Mark Mitchell , Zack Weinberg , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [basic-improvements] try/finally support for c/c++ - more tests In-Reply-To: <77C2989E-F59F-11D6-BC71-000393B2ABA2@apple.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00723.txt.bz2 Hi, On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Matt Austern wrote: > Whereas my opinion is that an attitude toward extensions other than > being conservative is very dangerous. I agree to a certain degree. But that doesn't relieve one from also thinking about any extension on its own, its implications and issues. > So for me, the question isn't whether an extension might be useful > for someone, but whether it's so very useful to enough people that it > can overcome a strong bias against adding extensions. Some extensions > pass that test; I'm not yet convinced that this one does. Yes, and I ask for specific reasons why this wouldn't pass. Ciao, Michael.